First, obviously, legalize it (i.e. Abortion).
Second, wait to some lone nutcase or fringe group goes off and kills someone in the name of vengeance.
Third, attack everyone who thinks murder should be illegal for being to blame for the nutcase simply for calling murder by the name of murder.
Just for the record, Jesus opposed the zealots and it was an act of idolatry that the mob decided that Barabbas should be release from crucifixion rather than him. God is the one ultimately who is allowing this killfest regime to rule the US since 1973. Christians are supposed to be patient under adversity. Anyone who reads the advice that Paul gives to slaves should know this.
I just listened to an interview with Roderick Long (haven’t read the article yet), but I wasn’t super impressed. He argues that if the state does not produce law and order that this provides an incentive for entrepreneurs in the private sector to find ways to produce these things. Well, duh, they do. They invent the state. In a word, tyrants gain control.
Which is what we should expect. We all know that businessmen try to gain monopolies by government power all the time. So why wouldn’t someone who started a “law and order” business not try to gain exactly that kind of monopoly?
If it were so simple, then we would never have seen the rise of states in the first place.
I can’t help but like Long, and he had better moments than the one I’m commenting on, but Libertarian intellectuals need to stop living in an obvious fantasy. Medieval Iceland didn’t get “law and order” from an entrepreneur. That is like getting language from a business startup. Icelandic society and customs produced law and order cooperatively, without any “entrepreneur.” (And, by the way, the Althing was not a legislature. Otherwise, it would not qualify as an anarchist precedent.)
If you were told you were only permitted to get bread, or shoes, or any other product from one and only one company, would it alleviate your concerns if you were permitted to vote for a change in the President of the company every four years?
A local pastor and his wife claim they were interrogated by a San Diego County official, who then threatened them with escalating fines if they continued to hold Bible studies in their home, 10News reported.
Attorney Dean Broyles of The Western Center For Law & Policy was shocked with what happened to the pastor and his wife.
Broyles said, “The county asked, ‘Do you have a regular meeting in your home?’ She said, ‘Yes.’ ‘Do you say amen?’ ‘Yes.’ ‘Do you pray?’ ‘Yes.’ ‘Do you say praise the Lord?’ ‘Yes.’”
The county employee notified the couple that the small Bible study, with an average of 15 people attending, was in violation of County regulations, according to Broyles.
Broyles said a few days later the couple received a written warning that listed “unlawful use of land” and told them to “stop religious assembly or apply for a major use permit” — a process that could cost tens of thousands of dollars.
Read the rest: Couple: County Trying To Stop Home Bible Studies – San Diego News Story – KGTV San Diego.
I guess someone could explain to this guy that “Bible study” is Evangelese for a regular get-together with snacks. Would an Oprah book group run into this problem.
I’m tempted to point out that Christians need to be prepared to start bribing. Though it might be better not to since, if we’re seen as a source of income, the situation would only become worse for every other Christian group.
Here’s my aid to young readers needing help with the cultural reference irony.
But I’m not going to blog about my frustration with local talk radio showing that we all think that every single horrible tragedy that ever happened could have been prevented with the right legislation and that such legislation must be immediately passed to save others from our fate.
I’m just reporting here that I am frustrated that we are a nation of sheep who demand intense and ever expansive shepherding.
At one time, it seemed taken for granted that it was preferable to die than suffer or do certain things. Even “Mutually Assured Destruction” was justified this way because “better dead than red.”
But now we are all in a new age. Anything that could possibly slow our ability to gain victory, or make our chances of protecting ourselves slightly less favorable, is treated as totally wrong, as if advancing our lives were simply the only possible consideration.
Chivalry led to all sorts of bad things (i.e. Dueling; acceptance of M.A.D. strategy against Communism). But there are parts of it I really miss.
The math is easy. If you allow investors to start new businesses and employ people you will have more incomes to tax. You will make more revenue marginally taxing the middle class than heavily taxing the upper class. If you heavily tax the rich you create incentives for them to do less with their money and not invest or start businesses that employ others.
Yet politicians find taxing the rich (or all the rich who don’t show proper respect by lobbying and donating to their campaigns) tempting. This is because the simple knowledge that one has power is more attractive than financial improvement. The “rich” are a power in society. By punishing them through taxes, the politicians prove to themselves that they are more powerful. Better to lose money than to lose power.
The state isn’t even moral enough to be a parasite.
This past weekend, my husband and I treated ourselves (actually, admission was free) to SLU’s Museum of Contemporary Religious Art’s (MOCRA) “Good Friday” exhibit. The exhibit closed Sunday, May 17.
I am a great art admirer. I say “admirer,” not “lover,” because the latter implies knowledge, and I cannot lay claim to much knowledge of art. I am, as Tolkien said of his own relationship to the land of Faerie, “a wandering explorer (or trespasser) in the land, full of wonder but not of information.” [J.R.R. Tolkien, "On Fairy Stories"]
Especially I am attracted to the religious art.
Read the rest: St. Louis Presbyterian Examiner: Death in the gallery.
Not from the GOP. From a “moderate” talk show host on Good Morning America. The Party, we were advised in response Steele’s (sp?) speech, should not be an ideological platform. It should be about only one thing: winning elections.
Well, for all the criticism of the Bush/Cheney machine, the bottom line is that everyone knows there is an ethical base in the Republican Party and the fascists on the other side are doing all they can to encourage Machiavelli to dominate over them.
This kind of murderous advice is what makes me unashamed to say I’m Republican.